introduction
Among the broad and various definitions of planning is Friedmann's conception of planning as the link between knowledge and action. Writing when planning still seemed firmly structured by modernist tendencies, Friedmann noted:
The conventional concept of planning is so deeply linked to the Euclidean mode that is it tempting to argue that if the traditional model has to go, then the very idea of planning must be abandoned. The only way around this dilemma â either Euclid or nothing â would be to define planning independently and distinct from the engineering sciences, which were its original inspiration. Such a definition involves the linking of knowledge to action: Planning is that professional practice that specifically seeks to connect forms of knowledge with form of action in the public domain. Although fairly abstract, this definition... allows us to think of a non-Euclidean model of planning (Friedmann 1993).[2] There are now a variety of 'non-Euclidean' models - perhaps more appropriatly referred to as 'non-Euclidean' theories or 'non-Euclidian' activities, since the very notion of a 'model' is also contested terrain [see recent planning theory]. Friedmann's conceptualization, however, continues to facilitate understanding and critique. After adding to the above illustration - which is surely too 'Euclidean' to address Friedmann's concerns - I use the heuristic as the basis for Foucauldian critique (here) and for distinguishing among different categories of planning theory (elsewhere).
Two additional facets - valuation and learning - more completely fill out Friedmann's conceptualization of planning. Valuation arises from the normative link between what is and what ought to be. What is may place restrictions on, or provide suggestions for, what can be, but our human capacity to imagine possibilities, make choices and direct actions raises the question of what should be. Choice necessarily inheres ethics and valuation, which may or may not be recognized or made explicit.
The fundamental need for a position and a meaning for our lives and for our species dominates whatever system of thought we espouse. We cannot exist conceptually without such cosmologies, yet many people are unaware of the values upon which they have founded their structure of meaning (Palmer 1988: 14).
[2] Recognizing the valuative connection inherent in the link between knowledge and action is crucial for planning. Not surprisingly, there is considerable discussion in the literature around this normative or ethical facet (e.g. [need more here] Alexander 1992,ref Hendler 1995, Dempster 1998a).
As an intellectual and professional community, planners recognize that every act of planning pursues certain human values and that planning is in many fundamental ways a series of statements about what we take to be right or wrong and what we take to represent the highest priorities of the society in which the planning is undertaken. (Wachs 1995: xiv)
[3] However, the critique offered on this page and in the discussion around different categories of planning theory, questions the depth to which this evaluative influence is recognized and addressed: Which of the foregoing quotations, Palmer or Wachs fits more accurately with planning and planners? And even if it is Wachs, what of a Foucauldian, poietic, or perhaps a Levinasian perspective...? Even if one recognizes the pursuit of values, can one recognize how and to what degree these are priveledged?
[4]
This illustration also incorporates
observation and
learning. Observing
outcomes can provide opportunities for learning, which can be fed back
into the different aspects of planning - although this seems to happen
to greater and lesser degrees. This facet of planning also
receives attention in the literature, Friedmann's emphasis on planning
as a form of social learning as an example. More broadly, I point
to descriptive or explanatory theory in discussing the variety of categories that exist.
[5] Given this more complete illustration of planning, further
questions and critique become more easily recognizable. For
example,
problematizing the notion of knowledge from a Foucauldian perspective,
provides quite a different picture.
>>>
a Foucauldian interpretation
Here, I attempt to illustrate a few key factors. First and foremost, 'knowledge' as a neutral (innocent and objective), isolatable object is replaced with Foucault's conception of power/knowledge - the combined word an indicator of their indivisible nature.
...power... always has to be considered in relation to a field of interactions, contemplated in a relationship which cannot be dissociated from forms of knowledge. (Foucault 1997:ref 59) [**]
[2] Power/knowledge is inequitably distributed across epistemic
communities. The interwoven
interconnections between values and learning combine in their reinforcement of power/knowledge, which has a self-producing influence on
itself and a dominating influence on multiple other epistemic communities.
Power/knowledge is systemically (perhaps also systematically) embedded in
'societal' norms - with 'societal' in scare quotes because they are the norms of the
rich and powerful, not of the masses.
[3] What role, then, does planning play? Can it still be considered as the link bewteen knowledge and action or is some other conceptualization required? As I have drawn it here, planning becomes primarily a means of reinforcing the status quo. It may also be a means of drawing power/knowledge from diverse epistemic communities - for better or worse - and channeling it back into the social community. As befits (at least my interpretation of ) a Foucauldian perspective, action is unspecified; it arises in a more diffuse, pervasive manner; being manifest through thought-less habit as well as from intention - and the latter will always include unintended consequences.
[4] Even this more complex illustration, however, needs critique: What subtle understandings and displays of power/knowledge underly these curves and arrows? How recognize the mutually interactive influences? How recognize this as my own contribution to maintaining the status quo rather than generating something radically different? How do I understand the power that underlies and motivates my knowledge; the knowledge that supports my power? [Obviously more to be developed here...!] These questions, coupled with recognition of the self-producing factors involved, suggests another illustrative heuristic; one based on a poietic intepretation [physically and/or epistemologically...?]. >>>
a poietic interpretation
Introducing another interpretation (and illustration) is not to let
go of the Foucauldian interpretation. I think those ideas are
worthy of attention and provide valuable critique. Instead, the
intention is to expand on them, emphasizing the recursive,
self-producing nature of knowledge, planning, action... I'm not
yet sure, however, how to illustrate the poietic perspective. To
some extent, it is already drawn into the diagrams presented here, but
I think there is need to uncover something deeper, more pervasive that
is at work here; something that gets at the structural implications,
the play between structure and organization, the interaction among
global-local influences...
[2] ...
...
[2] ...
...
...
[2] . ..
[3] ..
alternative conceptualizations...
There is more to be developed here, or perhaps (some of) it goes elsewhere. The following are brief notes or thoughts that might be ones to pursue...
'planning as a link between...'
- planning as the link between needs/wants/desires and opportunities
- does this suggest something more akin to an "assets-based" approach? i.e. gap analysis, etc.
- what
other considerations/processes link knowledge and action? what
other considerations/processes integrate values into actions?
- habits, norms, ethics,
- are these then aspects of planning, or are they something completely different? (and if the latter, should they be considered part of planning? - but think of Alexander(?)'s comment: planning isn't everything...) these questions fit with my considerations around how broadly planning can/should be defined, and for what reasons and/or when?
other thoughts
- planning as a self-producing factor; as a process that produces the status quo
- planning as a process that dignifies and institutionalizes the lowest common denominator
this page created: 2006.01.04
substantive revisions:
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.01.11
2003 - 2007